Questions about a free society

You guys be the jury on these hypothetical situations. Answer them as if you were the non-existant king of an objective society.

1. Someone is blasting their "music" at a decibel level equal to that of a shuttle taking off. The music is terrible in the opinions of all the surrounding neighbors, and the noise is unbearable to them. The stereo is on the property of the man playing the music, but the soundwaves are, in a way, "trespassing" on neighboring property. Should police intervene? Is there such thing as a person's right to not be blasted to near deafness by awful music?

2. A factory that deals with large amounts of radioactive material needs a place to dispose of their extremely potent hazardous byproduct. They own the radioactive waste, having purchased the materials to create it, and they own the land in which they bury it. Over time, the waste seeps into the city's water supply, killing thousands in violent, painful, painful deaths. Dead baby jokes aside, what role, if any, should the government play in such a situation?

3. A man has shot someone (as an act of aggression, not self-defense), inflicting a non-fatal wound upon another man. What is the punishment? If he serves this punishment, should he be allowed to own a gun when he returns to society, or is it possible through past trangressions to forfeit certain rights as a human being forever?

4. Gun rights are a given in a free society, but suppose a new weapon is developed. It's cheap, it's small, it's new, and it can kill hundreds of people instantly and indiscriminately. I can't imagine how there could be a market for such an item, but say that somebody develops it as a hobby, and certain pyschopaths hear of it and order some. Should citizens be allowed to purchase such an item, or do we need a government ban? This item has absolutely no potential for self-defense, as it kills people at random.

I'd really like to hear what some of you have to say about these questions, because some of them have me stumped.

Post 1

Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - 4:06pm

Here's another.

5. Suppose one of those "evil corporations" we keep hearing about really IS evil. Suppose it corners the market on something essential to human existance, like fresh water, and then refuses to sell it for any less than $500 a bottle. People are essentially forced against their will to pay for this to meet a human nessecity. Is this the time for government intervention?

Post 2

Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - 7:00pm

I'm no expert on rights, but I'll give this a go (plus it's perfect essay procrastination material).

1. I think the neighbour would have a right to reasonible quiet if there were a long standing condition of quiet. So the police could legitimately intervene if the neighbour asked them to.
If that were not the case, if the neighbour moved in next door to a night club for example, he would be going to a nuisance. He would be consciously putting himself into an area where there is sound pollution.
I think one can claim a right to pollute in this manner if the initial pollution does not violate any elses rights
I think that loud noise can interfere with one's ability to reason and live and that this is where a right to reasonible quiet comes from.

2. If it were reasonible to expect that this would happen and factory owner failed to take preventitive action, then he is guilty of those deaths. It would be like lighting a fire on one's suburban property and then abandoning it. Just because the germ of the problem started on one's land and was at first isolated there doesn't excuse the fact that it would *naturally* spread to other's property. The owner would be guilty of negligence leading to death.
So the proper government action would be prosecute the owner.

3. Yes, he should be allowed to own a gun once out of jail, if he is sane. Meaning, if it is within his volition to use that gun, he should be allowed to own it. One crime does not destroy one's reason and free will.

4. Good question. The key word here is "indiscriminately". If a weapon lacks the very application to be used in one's self-defence it is pointless. There is no moral excuse for such a weapon, at the individual or state level, so it should be boycotted.
I think the government would be within its proper role by baning such a device. Its existence in anyones hands would represent precipitous random murder.

5. The free market to your rescue. Fear not, nothing like that could happen on the free market because of profit and freedom. Suppose that you managed to buy up 90% of the water supply in the world and then set high prices. The owners of the remaining 10% would make massive profits by selling at a lower price. The pressure exerted by consumer's demand for water would create incentives to enter the water business. For if businessmen are free they will invest in industries that offer them the highest profit. The very existence of profit ensures that no one can make unusual profits for long because others will also want to make those high profits.
Such a would-be monopolist would have to try to buy all the desalinisation plants, wells and rain-collection that would bloom becuase of the water shortage. Suddenly water collection that would have been silly beforehand would become profitible.

I remember vaguely that some American businessmen tried to 'corner' various markets at the begining of the 20th century. They didn't manage it because without the state's monopoly powers the more they cornered the market the more attractive that market became to others.

Post 3

Friday, October 10, 2003 - 2:40pm

Several centuries of English Common Law make 1 and 2 easy. 3, 4 and 5 are more complicated.

1. This is covered by the tort of Private Nuisance. The Common Law says you are entitled to quiet enjoyment of your property. If the noise from a neighbouring property is unreasonable, in the context of a neighbourhood, you are entitled to petition the court for injuctive relief. Such an injunction could be enforced by the Police if necessary.

2. This is also a potential private nuisance, and additionally [depending on what counrty you ar in] it would be covered by a tort called The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher. A property owner is entitled t do on their land what they wish so long as it does not interfere with thier neighbours. Once the poison leaks out of their property, however, it is strict liability (in a civil sense). They would be liable to compensate monetarily for all damage caused. Whether this would also constitute a crime (where a public agency such as the Police could prosecute) would depend on the local criminal code. Most Western criminal code's have some provision for negligent homicide (where death is caused by the person not taking reasonable care in circumstances where they knew or ought to have known of the risks to others). Corporate liability for homicide is a sticking point in most countries however. You cannot jail a corporation (which is an abstract entity). That leaves you with two options: all corporations having a "Vice-President in Charge of Going to Jail", or jailing all senior company officers with sufficient culpable knowledge of the state of events. Both options are not really viable, so the punishments are usually monetary. In any event, current day laws could probably deal with this sort of situation.

3. What punishment the gunman gets depends on his mental state at the time of the offence. Did he intend to kill but by chance failed o do so? That's attempted murder. Did he not intend to kill, but did intend to injure? That's a species of assault (prbably a serious charge like inflicting grievous bodily harm). Did he not intend to hit anyone, but was aware of the risk of doing so and ran the risk anyway? Still criminally culpable for an assault of some kind (but probably less serious than if he meant to hurt someone. Did he not mean to hurt anyone, was not aware ofthe risk of doing so, but should have been aware of such a risk? Still culpable for an offence, but it would be low in the range (something like Injuring with and Illegal Act (he wouldn't get a significant punishment). Basicaly, in criminal law, the accused mental state at teh time of the offence will determine exactly what offence should be charged. This makes interesting work for ciminal lawyers. Next, should he be allowed a gun in the future? You'd have to convince me why he shouldn't be. I'd propably refuse him if it could be shown he was an ongoing threat to himself or others (similar test to compulsory psychiatric incarceration). Again, it would depend on his mental state in committing the offence. It may be he is not a risk of re-offending.

4. This is essentially the old "Can you have a nuclear weapon in your backyard" question. No real law exists (that I know of) on this one. My opinion is that if it demonstrably goes beyond the reasonable limits of self defence then you should not be allowed it. I'm open to other arguments on this, however.

5. I agree with Alastair on this. In a free market it couldn't happen. I think his reference to people trying it before was to a couple of guys who tried to corner the world silver market. I have the exact reference somewhere but can't find it right now. Anyway, they bought up massive amount of silver on the commodity market, with the intention of creating an effective monopoly. Didn't work though. Once the price started to creep upm everyone went through their attics and dug out Grandma's old silver. Massive amounts of 'new' silver flooded the market and the price nosedived. The "bad guys" lost a fortune. Same thing would happen with just about every conceivable commodity, I think.

Post 4

Friday, October 10, 2003 - 10:54pm

Here's another few questions; I hope I'm being somewhat thought-provoking.

6. In "Atlas Shrugged," Rand implies that no man should fear the skill of another man and try to keep that man down for fear of his ability to outcompete you. (I don't know the exact place, but it's in Galt's Gulch toward the end). I think that it directly conflicts with her views on selfishness. If a man is better than you at something but lacks the technical skills, and you are the only one who could provide those skills, she suggests that, at a fair price, you should teach that man the technical skills he requires to eventually run you out business. Seeing as the individual has no obligations to society, wouldn't it be in your best interest NOT to help the man who eventually will lead to your destruction?

7. On guns again. When buying a gun, does anyone think that any test should be required to demonstrate that you at least have basic knowledge of how to use it? If not, should insane people, who have not yet broken any law, be allowed to buy a gun?

8. If someone breaks into my house, do I have a right to shoot him even if he has no weapon and poses no physical threat to me?

Post 5

Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 2:59am